scarlet: welcome to bloomberg markets. coming up, and exclusive conversation with jim chanos. we will discuss trumponomics and shortselling. first, a quick check on her markets are trading. isabel: the nasdaq has just rebounded after spending most of the day languishing in the red. the reason is the bloomberg magnificent seven index, the biggest top seven index in the nasdaq 100. they were floundering, down by 0.2 percent. look at ishares. this is a blackrock etf i am looking at.

it tracks the nasdaq 100 without the top 36. it is up 0.7%, which indicates a rally broadening. looking at the 10 year treasuries, it is down by nine basis points after service sector activity weakened more than expected. scarlet: weakened more than expected. the price point on ism services came in a little bit lower. perhaps encouraging people who were worried about inflation. isabel lee, thank you so much for that. we will be keeping an eye on all these developments. we have our big conversation coming up. we are going to cover a wide range of topics from washington and policy to the stock market rally overall. i want to welcome our bloomberg radio and youtube audiences as we bring in our big guest this hour, and my coanchor for the close romaine bostick joins us for an excuse of conversation with jim chanos. jim, a comeback. jim: thank you for having me.

scarlet: you are a skeptic. some might say a cynic. you built your career on questioning conventional wisdom companies say. when it comes to expectations of trumponomics and the market under donald trump, what are people not seeing? jim: i think -- and i have been posting that i think -- the budget cuts are going to be a lot harder than people think. we are going after the low hanging fruit, both practically and politically right now, with the usaid stuff. but this is as outrageous as some of the things the does -- doge committee is finding. some of them are silly. materially, we are not going to be able to do a lot until we get to serious items like medicare, medicaid, defense. scarlet: the third rail. jim: the hot ticket third rail type stuff. that is going to be much, much tougher. i think we are still in the

early parts of sort of political theater on trumponomics. and of course we have the whole separate issue on tariffs. scarlet: you look at trump' is policies overall. they are both populist and standard republican, but so far he has chosen to focus on trade war over cutting taxes. what does this tell you about trumponomics in this second go around, rather than the first attempt? jim: he obviously came right out of the gate with the tariffs over this past weekend that have been walked back temporarily. it appears they are serious there. we will see. the fact that mexico and canada kind of agreed to do things they had already agreed to do -- mexico had 10,000 troops on its border going back to 2017 and a promise they made to trump the first go around and reiterated with biden. again, how much is political theater? how much is real?

we will have to see. the china tariffs i think obviously are a lot more serious and are worth watching. romaine: what is the economic risk? jim: there are a couple of problems with the message. if we charge enough tariffs, we really can eliminate things like the income tax and sort of broad promises? tariffs i think brought in about $80 billion last year. in order for tariffs to replace the income tax, it is about $2 trillion of our $4 trillion of revenues, we have to have a lot of tariffs. i don't think we are looking at that. a question is, is this being used as a national security cudgel as well as an economic cudgel? or is it strictly economics because they really believe they can raise a lot of money with tariffs? the numbers kind of don't cancel out. romaine: i'm curious when we

talk about the potential overhang of this. in fairness to the trump administration, it has only been a couple of weeks. the idea that mexico and canada have a one-off retrieve, these economic watchers want another month of uncertainty. do you think we will get more of a concrete policy, meaning an actual resolution in some form or another that will provide some certainty, whether the market likes it or not? jim: i think that drama is part of the message. it was in the first administration. one thing you might at least point out in the past administration, for good or bad -- what was coming out of the white house overnight. we are back to a much more volatile set of political pronouncements and streams of walk backs. there is more uncertainty. romaine: how much confidence do

you have in the people around at trump? trump himself, we know he is this vortex, but there are relatively competent people around him including the treasury secretary, who you have some familiarity with. jim: i trained him. romaine: he was one of your first analysts. jim: he was my first analyst. i like scott bessent an awful lot. we don't share the same politics, but he is a man of real character. i think he was probably the best man for the job in the political arena. so i am hoping he does well. i think he will do well, hopefully. i know he has the country's best interests at heart. scarlet: you did see him but did not get to talk to him about what he is doing right now. jim: i was able to see him and congratulate him after he got the nod. he has got his hands full. scarlet: you have described the last few years as the golden age of fraud -- muddy accounting, question all behavior on the parts of investors, of companies. how would you describe where we

are now, given that the lines between government and business are more intertwined than ever? you have elon musk running doge. you have the president selling his meme coin. we have regulators taking hands off the wheel completely. jim: i am hard-pressed to think that we are going to see less of it in the near term. it sure seems like we are going to see more of it. look, this is a cycle the likes of which i have never seen. the willingness of people to believe things that simply are not true never ceases to amaze me, particularly as the cycle carries on. the willingness of management teams to project into the future and make all kinds of claims and promises, i think, is sort of unprecedented. it is greater now. i have always said that bull markets place a premium on

promises and bear markets discount reality. right now, there are lots of companies making lots of promises. scarlet: -- romaine: what is the reality? you have some conflict of interest. folks would say they are not in charge, but they are leading the charge in trying to put out whatever they think could potentially be blocking us down. if you are not a friend of elon musk or a friend of trump and you are running a company or an investment fund, should you be worried? jim: i don't know. i don't know how personal it is going to get to companies and individuals. what i am concerned that we have this new structure set up with people that are basically going in again and if you read the president's executive order, setting up the doge committee, which was an existing committee, the u.s. digital services committee, it has no authority

or even recommendations. it is set up as a technology and consulting organization. obviously, the belly wake has expanded to be something much greater than that. the question will be will at some point a federal judge somewhere say, wait a minute. you are going beyond your purview, beyond the legal. romaine: we can talk about usaid and some of these other things, but the treasury, we are talking about the backbone of our economy. jim: we will see to the extent when it goes beyond just aerobic studies about shrimp, and gets into social security and medicaid payments and things like that. then, i think you are going to see if there is any pushback. it will be pretty serious. scarlet: the tariffs in china, you said, are going to be more serious.

the response was targeted tariffs on about 80 products, which hardly seems like a proportional response. does this indicate that china has more to lose from a trade war with the u.s. than the other way around? jim: the argument is that china is more export driven. we will have to see. i think china probably feels it was proportional. we don't know the discussions behind the scenes. wait and see. i think 10% is not going to do it. getting back to our early conversation about the amount of tariffs you need to raise serious revenues, you would have to raise them substantially on both china and the e.u., and we have not seen that yet. we have to see what exactly comes within 30 days, 60 days. does it escalate? does it cool off?

was it an early campaign promise he has delivered on and moved on to something else? scarlet: it comes at a precarious time for china's economy. you have warned about the broken economic model. the tariffs, an additional 10% -- what does it mean for the long-term decline? jim: it does not help it. that's for sure. the china economy relies on net exports after 2010, when we first put out a warning, and it is growing again. part of it is the investment driven model we have been crying wolf about forever is losing its impetus, to continue to grow. the banking system is still bloated. we have seen that problem in the residential -- the residential real estate area trickle down to the developers.

they have a model that really is facing kind of a crossroads with what they are going to do. the u.s. putting on major tariffs on one of the few thriving parts of the engine, the export manufacturing area, is not going to help. scarlet: we're went to take a quick break. we will have more. keep it right here. ♪

scarlet: this is bloomberg markets. we are back with our exclusive conversation with jim chanos. here with me as my coanchor for the close, romaine bostick. we look at the market. it is three months after the

election and the s&p 500 is up about 4%. it is just about a percent high of its record high. isn't it still a big come along trade? how significantly different is the market under trump than hunter biden? jim: it did pretty well -- than under biden? jim: it did well under biden. it did pretty well under trump 1. that has done better historically under democratic administrations than republican administrations. it is hard-pressed to see, if you look at the continuity of the last eight or nine years, or going further than that, where the elections are -- the market has done pretty well under all administrations. scarlet: because it has done well, there is little institutional appetite for shortselling. converted your hedge fund into a family office and advisor because of that. we saw activist short seller nate anderson quit as well.

is the traditional shortselling strategy just dead now? jim: there are two different models you have referenced -- the sort of traditional model that we employed for the better part of 40 years. simply putting on short positions and a strong hedge for our clients who were looking for that exposure, and then there is the short activist model, which people like me and others have really done well with. i think it is almost two different questions. there is virtually very little appetite for short-oriented fund products even if it is hedged. a lot of that is the advent of the so-called multi-management shops which have done a pretty good job of delivering returns for very little net exposure, which is what the long/short industry did for years and years. that changed. the industry morphed into

basically mostly long on the hedge fund side. i think that there is always a market for insurance, as i have said. remember that good fundamental short decisions allow you to be more long. that has always been the point. they allow you to finance your longs. for us, it was passive. we bought the indexes that had our short portfolio. by the way, bloomberg has a wonderful short index. it is in the terminal, the goldman sachs most shorted index. it is rebalance monthly. if you look at that since the gamestop episode where everybody has basically said shortselling is dead, the risks are too high, then you simply shorted that index, but the s&p or related passive index, rebalance monthly -- that return has been spectacular. so there is still alpha on the short side.

it is just nobody thinks it is there anymore. romaine: that is more on an index level. jim: that index is of individual stocks, the most shorted stocks. it is a representative portfolio of very dicey companies we will short. romaine: what is the risk out there? we have written all these headlines about the demise -- i know it is not completely dead. we talk about shorts are 70% down since the financial crisis. even activist campaigns -- it was a record low year for activist campaigns. is that a reflection of market dynamics are public and political dynamics? jim: i think both. market prices are people's opinions based on facts. people have gotten much more bullish over general political level normal regulation, the promises that companies made,

that we talked about earlier. these are all part of a bull market. it is just that the cycle has lasted longer than a lot of people thought, including me. i think that can change. the problem is that price levels and where we are in that part of the cycle don't give you a good sense of timing. they do give you a good sense of how much risk you are taking. romaine: it feels like there is a lot of risk in this market if you look at other market valuations at an individual stock level. valuations are high. you look at technology. you go deeper into ai, the valuations are even higher. can you make a case? jim: it is not quite where it wasn't when it when he won, the most speculative market i have seen. the speculation in meme coins -- people are floating these

things. romaine: you did not buy the money? jim: i did not buy the and rowing -- the enron coin that was floated yesterday. these are all signs. but we have not seen yet, which we saw in 2021, but i suspect we will see soon, is a lot of issuance. i have seen that wall street has a printing press just like a fed. once that printing press goes and everybody gets filled, generally you end up with some heavy weather, as we did in 2022. have not seen it yet. i suspect we will. scarlet: i want to get your thoughts on deepseek and its technological breakthrough -- a cheaper and more efficient ai model. does it help answer whether we are in an ai bubble? jim: when it came out -- and i know nothing about llm and which model is better -- it underscores the risks of disruptive technology. that is, when you are betting on disruptive technology, you have to almost consider the risk that

that technology will be disrupted itself by a better mousetrap, the kid in the garage. we talk about all of the possible risks. and that is something coming out of left field that i think can change the argument. i think that is what deepseek underscored, was that way to minute, maybe there is a way to do ai with less capex, less chips, cheaper. and nobody had really considered that until deepseek. i don't know that deepseek dethrone's the other models. that is beyond my pay grade. but it does underscore the risks of paying multiples of revenue that are historically considered egregious. and now we have companies trading at 20, 30, 40 times revenues. that gives you an idea of the risk in those businesses. scarlet: look at palantir and how well it has done. it has talked about untamed

organic growth. when it comes to big tech and ai, the threat of disruptive technology, do you see evidence that institutional investors maybe have the appetite to start hedging are looking to protect against some of those positions? jim: i have not seen it yet, but they should. one thing i will mention about technology is the disruptive technology -- everything is a positive. the internet will affect all things positively. in fact, what we found and what i and my clients made a lot of money on from 2000 through 2010 was how many businesses got disrupted by the internet. how many businesses went away? it will be the same thing in ai that not a lot of people are talking about here. ai is a very revolutionary technology and will benefit lots of things and hopefully

humanity, but by definition, it will put a lot of business models out of business. romaine: we are already starting to hear talk about that. sony people were dismissive of deepseek and its founders. there were a lot of conversations about what they did and how they paid for it. but we saw that same dismissiveness in the computer era and the.com bubble. a lot of people scoffed at jeff bezos and amazon and what apple and steve jobs are doing. jim: those companies had big valuations in the part of the cycle, but what everybody forgets about amazon is the 90% plus declines they have had in 2003, 2007, 2008. for me to tell investors that is fine -- and when you are down 95%, only if you are still adding to the position. number two, we forget about

america online, yahoo!, s&p. romaine: i still remember to this day. but enron, worldcom -- how am i supposed to believe that all of these companies trying to sell their ai product and giving numbers to what they are selling are on the up and up, particularly because we do not have a jim chanos out there rattling the cages? jim: i am still rattling occasionally, romaine. but you underscore an important part of the fundamental role short-sellers play, whether fund managers or activists. they are still the only ones incentivized in real time, other than journalists, the point this stuff out. scarlet: as we wrap up our conversation, if investors are less sensitive to valuations, and that seems to be the case the last couple of years when passive funds are driving a lot of the price action, the inflows, what is the impact on the health of markets overall,

and i guess you could expand that to capitalism? jim: my friend mike green has been talking for years about passivity and the impact on markets and will it simply lead to disruptive events, meaning everyone going to one side of the boat and then the other side of the boat, so flows become much more important. i certainly hope that is not the case in extremis. it is certainly happening now. the fact of the matter is if we cannot differentiate valuations, it is all a matter of flows. then unimportant part of capitalism -- capitalism is broken. you do not want to be sending a lot of money to enron and theranos. you want to send it to the amazons. we hope the market starts differentiating between these beyond simple flows and narratives and positioning, and all the things that everybody

watches now like a hawk, hour to hour. if not, we do not have proper capitalism. scarlet: what is the biggest risk in the next six to 12 months? jim: something i don't see, probably. by definition, it is the stuff that -- exactly. i think the political theater is going to get ratcheted up. it sure seems that way, that we are headed to kind of an issue where congress is going to have to say i'm going to abrogate my entire responsibility to the executive branch. so i suspect day-to-day it will be politics. the real risks will be something like deepseek that comes out of left field that changes people's thinking, and by definition, we do not know what that is. scarlet: a complete reset perhaps on investor expectations. a real pleasure speaking with you. jim chanos is the president and founder of china san company. -- of chanos and company.

the companies making headlines -- this is bloomberg. ♪

scarlet: welcome to "bloomberg markets." a little bit of a recovery in the stock market. s&p 500 higher by .1%. we are seeing weakness in those tech names led by alphabet after the cloud revenue missed analyst estimates. there's a rally taking place in bonds. yield on the 10-year, gun almost nine basis points after the services sector showed growth but a weaker than expected reading. a slowdown in the rate of growth not expected. the new treasury secretary released treasury's quarterly supply announcement. he has chosen to keep sales of

longer data debt unchanged from what his predecessor did hunter biden. the dollar weaker by 20%. the currency -- .3%. let's highlight a couple of the individual equity movers. we go to natalia. natalia: amd shares are down by 7%. at one moment they were down by 11%, the biggest drop since 2019. analyst did not like the fact that revenue from data centers came in weaker than expected. keep in mind year-over-year growth was really strong. 69%. the management also indicated the second half of 2025 will be better than the first half. let's look at the consumer space. shares of mattel are up by 15%, the biggest since 2019. revenue sales were better-than-expected. one of the key areas to watch is pricing.

we know that mattel sources about 40% of its revenue from china. the management has indicated they are ready to increase prices for barbie and hot wheels toys to offset some potential tariffs. uber technologies. the stock is now down by 7%. analysts did not like the fact that first quarter bookings were worse than expected. becoming blamed currency headwinds, severe weather in january, and wildfires in los angeles. one area to watch is what is going on with capital expenditures. we know that with rollout of self-driving vehicles from waymo and tesla can potentially force the company to increase investments in the space. scarlet: i want to continue the conversation with natalie lowe.

we heard about this disappointing outlook from uber which signals concerning the an extension of the softer demand for rides that uber signaled it was seeing last year. natalie: what happened was uber talked about the rising insurance costs that they passed on to consumers and have hit demand in some key markets like new jersey and california. they are trying to do something about it this year. scarlet: when i booked a new were yesterday, the app told me regulatory fees made up x percent of the overall price. i don't recall seeing that. it underscores the idea that for uber these are cost beyond their control but it is something that is affecting consumer behavior. natalie: in new york, they filed a racketeering lawsuit against some lawyers and clinics for accusing them of taking advantage of the insurance laws and faking car accidents to get insurance payouts and pushing up the cost. they are putting forward a few policy initiatives to try to push back at and drive down the cost. scarlet: the legal overhangs for

uber. uber is trying to seek other sources of growth and looking to sell subscriptions. what is a monthly pass for a commuter look like? natalie: that was found in uber's files last month. it's a $2.99 a month pass to help people avoid surge pricing. you can lock in your commute route in the morning and maybe one in the evening as well. scarlet: when is this going to be rolled out? natalie: the company would not comment on our findings but it is deftly in the works. scarlet: also in the works is autonomous vehicles. uber has been striking partnerships. where we yet in that effort? natalie: who were announced they are opening up a waitlist for people in austin to sign up for waymo rights that will launch next month. in atlanta, they will launch exclusively with waymo as well in the summer.

there will be more partnerships coming. they see this as a long game they are trying to play here. scarlet: what about partnerships with other merchants when it comes to delivery of items? the delivery food has paid off well. natalie: they partnered with home depot. we are seeing more nonfood and non-restaurant merchants they are partnering with so people can order anything on-demand. scarlet: certainly in demand in places like new york and l.a. just moments ago we sat down with a conversation with the president and founder of the legendary short seller. we covered a wide range of topics, including the u.s. tariffs aimed at china. take a listen. >> mexico and canada agreed to do things they had already agreed to do. mexico had 10,000 to 15,000 troops on the border going back to 2017. the promise that me to trump the first go around.

they reiterated it with biden. again, how much is political theater and how much is real? we will have to see. the china tariffs obviously are a lot more serious and are worth watching. scarlet: the tariffs have every industry drumming up strategies on how to navigate the uncertainty, including fashion and apparel. he with more is steve lamar, president and ceo of the american apparel and footwear association that represents more than 1000 brands on industry standards regarding trade, supply chains, and manufacturing. the perfect person to talk about all of this with. thank you for joining us. the fashion industry is already the most heavily tariffs in the u.se -- tariffed in the u.s. the degree to which they are actually imposed. whatever the case your members have in planning for these higher tariffs since election, walk us through how they are doing that. x: thank you for having us on -- steve: thank you for having us on. we represent about 5% of the

imports that come into the u.s. and pay about 25% of the tariffs. ultimately these are tariffs that are passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices but it can be other ways as well. the way companies are looking to manage and mitigate this is a variety of things. understanding how the customers rules are going to work. understanding which tariffs are threats in which are real. how it is affecting sourcing. whether there's an opportunity to do more near shoring, even some manufacturing in the u.s. that also creates a problem. if you are putting a tariff on the fabrics coming in, now you are creating a disincentive to produce product in the united states. scarlet: there's a lot of moving parts. china is perhaps the biggest target for trump's tariffs. the industry has been diversifying away from china -based suppliers for other

countries. how far along in the process are we? the second inning or eighth inning? steve: probably in the 20th inning. it has been going on for a long time. it predates president trump's first term. it was occurring in his second term -- president biden's term and still going on. diversification. a lot of things need to happen. you need a graceful exit from the places you are leaving but you also want to go into facilities and countries that are good partners. sometimes there are good partners that are good partners like the way the u.s. will look at it, maybe in words. the uss we what you do business in mexico and over the weekend they threatened a 25% tariff. is that the place where you should be putting your business or maybe sit back and wait? diversification that we have been trying to do and people have been doing, that

diversification sometimes runs into roadblocks the same policy makers advocating for diversification are putting up. scarlet: that is frustrating. is it possible for individual brands to complete the eliminate china from their supply chain? steve: china is an important partner from both a marketing perspective and a supply chain perspective. that will continue to be the case. they produce high-quality fabrics and great workmanship. it's a complicated partner, as many are. large partners are always complicated. as companies look to diversify, they are looking to figure ahead to continue to grow the partnership where it makes sense will look for other partner second replace that where that makes sense. scarlet: that makes sense. it's a work in progress here. let's talk about the existing tariff structure for the fashion industry. the most heavily tariffed industry. you described it as something that is regressive and misogynistic. steve: regressive and a couple

of different ways. -- in a couple of different ways. a higher percentage of disposable income is spent on things that will receive the tariffs. as a raising the tariff on products like toys, cl othes, shoes, the lead up disposable budgets. at the same time, the way the tariff rates work, there are a number of products, children's shoes for exam will that have a high tariff rate but more expensive high-end leather loafers might have a lower rate. higher income americans might be facing lower rates than lower income americans would be. on top of that, you have this crazy situation where the tariff rate on product for use by women are higher than a product produced by men. it is called the pink tariff. scarlet: because it can be. steve: that is what they are doing. in 2016-2017, the government cap

fleet of the burden of purchasers of women's products versus men's is an additional $2 billion. that was eight years ago. it has gotten worse since then. as we look at tariffs going forward, one thing we keep trying to tell policymakers is before we look at putting on more tariffs, go back and look at the existing 95-year-old tariff structure and wonder if it needs to be overhauled and fixed. it is not doing such a great job as it is. scarlet: what is the appetite in d.c. for tweaking what already exists? steve: we are hoping the appetite will get bigger. the president has invited a conversation about tariffs. he prefers a conversation where he is announcing. congress, article one, section eight, look it up, they have the response ability for tariffs. we are asking congress to step up and own the role to make sure with the president does -- he's using tariffs as a tool the

right way but is doing it in consultation with them that's making sense, building into a smart trade policy. are we trying to diversify from countries? are we trying to bring product back to the u.s.? are we trying to raise revenue? what is the goal. let's make sure we have a tariff policy that actually will help us accomplish that goal. scarlet: there's a lot of nuance that needs to be laid out. you are not necessarily going to find that in the executive branch because, you know, he's got bigger picture in mind. steve: we are talking about tariffs on things that are not going to really do the job we want. if we were trying to stop counterfeit from coming into the u.s., that is not a tariff conversation. that's a conversation about getting third-party marketplaces to make sure they are not marketing and selling those products. scarlet: that is where they call tariffs a blunt tool. steve lamar, president and ceo of the aafa. we are taking a look at disney earnings. they topped estimates. you look at the stock and it is

down. this is member. -- this is bloomberg. ♪ hard work meets bold new thinking. to help you see untapped possibilities and relentlessly work with you to make them real. ♪ ♪ - [female narrator] they line up by the thousands. and relentlessly work with you each one suffering with a story that breaks your heart. like 10 year old zakael. he had a growing tumor on his neck. his need for surgery was urgent. and ravette, who needed help, because every step brought her pain. their only hope is a ship unlike any other. mercy ships. the largest floating civilian hospital in the world. with volunteer doctors and nurses who come to save lives. 60 minutes called mercy ships:

"the intersection of courage and compassion." their mission is both simple and remarkably challenging. to bring free surgeries and care for people who have no other hope. they're true heroes. but they can't do this work without you. all it takes is a small monthly gift. call now. only 62 cents a day. $19 a month will help provide urgently needed surgery for the world's forgotten poor. the most vulnerable of all. - every human being has the right to be treated as human. to have a place at the table of the human race. - [female narrator] if you have every wondered: "how can i, just one person, make a difference?" this is your answer. call now or go to mercyships.org. you too can transform lives. you too can be a hero. mercy ships saves thousands every year. but so many are still waiting and praying

for surgery they could never get without your help. so don't wait. call the number on your screen. or donate now at mercyships.org that's the number on your screen.

scarlet: this is "bloomberg markets." time for the stock of the hour. we are looking at disney. shares lower after the reported first-quarter results that topped analyst estimates. disney plus, the streaming part, did see a loss of subscribers. there is some conferred does confusion over espn's up -- there is some confusion over espn's channel. >> the streaming business is doing extremely well. this is a business we invested heavily in a couple of years ago. you are seeing the benefit of

those investments. our expectation is we will continue to grow subs. we will improve margins. we should make more than $1 billion this year and next year we are looking at double-digit margins. scarlet: for more on this i want to bring in our u.s. media analyst at bloomberg intelligence. we know during the time as he raised the streaming service by 25%, as i was helping drive these streaming profits? >> to a large part that is true, scarlet. the average revenue per user is up strongly and that is definitely helping to drive profit. every time when you raise prices you see some amount of churn. we saw some losses in the fiscal first quarter. we will see some losses in subscribers during fiscal 2q as well. scarlet: it has to confusion for the pressure of the consumer

feels with others raising prices as well. we mentioned the confusion over espn and what disney is doing. disney will be combining hulu and live tv and trying to make espn accessible. i'm not understand how this fits in with espn plus and what it offers already through old-fashioned cable. geetha: espn plus, the version we have now is really a very skinny version of the actual stuff you find on the premier flagship espn channel on linear tv. what disney will be doing for the first time in its history is going to be taking all the content you can find on linear tv, linear espn, and putting it all the cart. -- ala cart. you can actually get all the espn content which includes the nba, nfl, the marquee content consumers love through a streaming package without having

to go through cable tv. yes, it will create confusion. the way disney is pitching the product is it is going to be a premium product. they are going to integrate many different features. not just streaming. you will be able to have sports betting, fantasy sports, very customizable and personalized features they hope audiences will like. scarlet: there will be some value add options as well. just to make things more complicated, espn is included in other cable operators' own skinny bundles. comcast and directv have bundles including espn. just a confusing whether you need to go to disney for espn or not. geetha: they are basically trying to get espn out there in as many ways as you can. if you're sticking with the cable tv packets, you can find it on tv. if you want to go to a streaming bundle, basically a bundle of

different tv channels, you can do that. if your in espn hard-core fan and want to get all these other different features disney will offer with special espn products, flagship espn, you will go to that product. what the streaming platforms you will have the additional advantage of bundles. the disney streaming bundle. if you're a disney plus or hulu subscriber, i'm sure they will offer a lot of promotions and packages. scarlet: just to make things more confusion and make everyone's head spin. we now get a sense of what the other streamers might be highlighting in the earnings reports. news corp. will be reporting this afternoon. not quite the same kind of company but a media company nonetheless. you have warner bros. discovery later on in the month. what do you think you will be paying attention to when those other companies start to report? geetha: for a lot of companies, think about warner bros. and you think about paramount, linear tv

is still the big, big portion of both revenue and profits for the company's. we want to see the health of the linear tv business, especially the advertising portion which has been in freefall for many quarters. for warner bros., there's always the perennial question of consolidation, whether they want to do something with their linear tv assets. disney was asked that question and they said they are happy with the way things are. streaming profits is now the very big storyline. we have seen disney perform. warner bros. has done a good job as well. just hoping they keep wrapping up in building on that momentum -- ramping up and building on that momentum. scarlet: geetha, thank you. this is bloomberg. ♪

scarlet: this is "bloomberg

markets." a headline that crossed this hour. the french prime minister survived a no-confidence motion assuring the adoption of a 2025 budget following months of political turmoil. let's bring in alan katz. this is separate and different in the no-confidence vote last year that led to the toppling of michelle gagne. the budget discussions in the debate over budgets i guess are similar. alan: it's really about the same budget. gagne was toppled over the budget because they were too many opposition parties that thought it was too severe a budget and found it in their political interest to push him out. that is what he got booted out. they came up with a budget that was a little less draconian. more to the point, the real difference was that the french public was not in the mood for months more of this political

and financial turmoil. it had slowed down investment and decision-making with businesses. the political groups that pushed out the former prime minister i think felt under the gun not to prolong any sort of additional uncertainty or turmoil in france. scarlet: there was a clear push for stability at this point after months and months of turmoil. what does this mean for financial assets? french bonds have been rallying. was this priced in? alan: it was priced in but it only the last couple of days. different bond yield, the spread of french bonds compared to german bonds wiped out after macron dissolved parliament and calls for elections last june. it had been trading roughly in the 40 to 50 basis point range. it widened to about 70 to 80. it has been roughly in that range of percent and had gone up to 90 and came back down to write close to 70 in the last few days as people expected this budget to go through and to

survive this confidence motion. the reason is it is not the people of the budget. maybe not esther conine but still a belt-tightening budget. it's about trying to reduce the deficit. it increases taxes on businesses but that's better than the paralysis of not having the budget. yes, it is probably largely priced in. in the short term, and we put out stories about this, people aspect the french bonds spread to continue to narrow as people are happy there is a budget and france can move forward from here. scarlet: appreciate you joining us and hopping on with this breaking news. the french premier surviving a no-confidence vote and that means it should be a go for the new budget for 22 any five. -- 2025. i'm scarlet fu. that does it for bloomberg markets as we take it a balance of power. equity markets now. we have gains in the s&p 500. we recovered from earlier

declines. the magnificent seven has moved higher as well. from new york, this is bloomberg. ♪

>> from the world of politics to the world of business, this is "balance of power." ♪ live from washington, d.c.

joe: will the senate jim the house? -- jam the house? attention shifts to the upper chamber to craft a reconciliation plan which is six weeks until a funding deadline arrives. i'm joe mathieu alongside kailey leinz. welcome to the wednesday edition of "balance of power." the idea of what donald trump calls one big beautiful bill might be facing its real test now. kailey: the house was supposed to start marking things up this week in terms of a budget. does not look like that is set to happen which is why we are questioning it's actually the senate that might be able to move first. the senate under majority leader john thune has been pushing for a two-bill strategy addressing things like the border first and taxes later. joe: john barrasso was talking to big-game at mar-a-lago on friday night. let us take this and we will get it done before mike johnson sees it differently. kailey: you have to wonder how elon musk will be factoring into these